Sal Paradise wrote:Capitalism is working fine - is the average standard of living of the population as a whole is still increasing. Standard of living is just about how much you earn. Do you have improving medical facilities, clinical techniques and more effective pharma? Are the roads better, do we have access to better housing stock, do we have cheap clean utilities etc.

Where are the challenges - a better spread of wealth, maintaining income post working age, the impact on the environment etc. Reduction in buying stuff - we seem to have a very disposable attitude to material items - look at the amount of clothes we all have?

wrencat1873 wrote:Although it would give the ecconomy a further shock, for the long term sustainably of the planet, we will either have to reduce the population and/or reduce consumption, which just doesn't fit with the capitalist model.
Remembering that the vast majority of the population in Asia, which is a huge and increasing percentage of overall population would generally be though of being at the poorer end of the financial spectrum and that they too will all aspire to the trappings of success ie house, car, improved standard of living etc, just where will the resources come from to provide this, not to mention the dreaded carbon emissions to produce the goods that they desire.
There needs to be a re think on how we ALL live our lives, something that will be at odds with the capitalist driven, self centred utopia that some of the more wealthy and aspirational members of the western world desire.

IR80 wrote:yay, our daily dose of wrencat envy politics...

King Street Cat wrote:I don't see anything envious in that post, and it's hardly political. Go troll somewhere else.

wrencat1873 wrote:Although it would give the ecconomy a further shock, for the long term sustainably of the planet, we will either have to reduce the population and/or reduce consumption, which just doesn't fit with the capitalist model.
Remembering that the vast majority of the population in Asia, which is a huge and increasing percentage of overall population would generally be though of being at the poorer end of the financial spectrum and that they too will all aspire to the trappings of success ie house, car, improved standard of living etc, just where will the resources come from to provide this, not to mention the dreaded carbon emissions to produce the goods that they desire.
There needs to be a re think on how we ALL live our lives, something that will be at odds with the capitalist driven, self centred utopia that some of the more wealthy and aspirational members of the western world desire.

Sal Paradise wrote:Anyone who thinks that humans have anywhere near reached their limits of their potential is delusional. This planet has survived far greater issues that the current carbon-crisis - the idea that we all must return to some kind of new dark age is bonkers. In terms of natural resource there is an almost limitless supply and as we become more efficient we will use far less. Nuclear energy provides cheap clean and safe energy yet the ER folks think we should use wind and solar!!

wrencat1873 wrote::lol:
This really is hilarious.
Of course human beings haven't reached their limits, not even close.
However, what they have done, in their few thousand years, on a planet that has been turning for millions of years, is, to be too successful at breeding and in turn, burning the planets resources at an increasing rate - only an utter fool can try to argue that point.
You are right about Nuclear Energy being cheap and clean but, the half life of the waste created is so utterly long lasting that very few governments are rushing towards this as a solution, with an increasing amount going for renewables.
We are also warming the planet to a point where some areas WILL become inhabitable, forcing the growing population into ever decreasing spaces.
This isn't opinion, it's absolute fact.

Yes, humans are supremely resourceful and they will find a myriad of new ways to live on the planet, regardless of how hollowed out it becomes.
However, we should be trying to leave the place in a better state than when we arrived and, right now, I dont think that as a species, we are anywhere close to that.

Maybe one day, we will find that elusive planet in outer space that is capable of supporting human life and then, bingo, problem solved.

I know that we have never met but, your views the value of life and people, especially those less fortunate than yourself, are a long way from mine and even you should be able to see that if we manage the planets resources better, EVERYONE benefits.

Alternatively, we can just carry on till the end and screw whoever comes next.

Sal Paradise wrote:Firstly I am not disputing your comments - the timeframes are millions of years not tens.

Humans could never leave the planet in a better state than before evolution - it is simply not possible. Are you suggesting birth control so only a certain number of children can be born every year and a global maximum number of inhabitants i.e. population control?

I would be very interested in how you would propose to roll back the progress - do we stop making drugs so lifespans are reduced how will we live?

wrencat1873 wrote:Millions of years seems extremely unlikely, the dreaded meteor is likely to happen long before that length of time passes, maybe even a virous that destroys the species ?

As for population control, quite possibly - it already exists in China ??

As for the world being a better place for the next generation. Despite the burning of some of the planets resources, I would suggest that broadly speaking, it has been "improved" for the next generation. However, the modern consume, consume, consume world, does risk the future.
Some people are able to see this and suggest a change of direction, while others are happy to "carry on regardless" and I do believe there will be a tipping point - probably to do with environmental issues and at this point there will very likely be a change in direction in how EVERYONE has to live their life.
I will be long gone but, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be bothered, unlike some.